On Apr 9, 2008, at 9:10 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
Dan,
S 4.3.
The entire section on shared key conferencing doesn't lead to any
requirements as far as I can tell. Does it make sense to remove
it from this document?
Right. It seems useful to leave it in, as mentioned at the beginning
of the section:
The consensus on the RTPSEC mailing list was to concentrate on
unicast, point-to-point sessions. Thus, there are no requirements
related to shared key conferencing. This section is retained for
informational purposes.
if others agree it should be removed, I can remove it.
DY> I agree that it is useful to leave the information in there,
primarily to prevent people reading the document and saying "But what
about shared key conferencing?". However, it does seem somewhat
strange to have it there in the Call Scenarios section when there are
no requirements for that particular call scenario.
DY> What if you were to move it into an Appendix - perhaps into the
existing Appendix B where you have already indicated that shared key
conferencing is out-of-scope (this section would then elaborate on
the point of why it is difficult), or perhaps into a new Appendix.
My 2 cents,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Build voice applications based on open standards.
Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
